Just a quick note for those who missed the post mentioning that the Big Lottery Fund decision on the Memorial Hall redevelopment grant is to be announced on Wednesday 17th December.
The Grant’s Committee met on the 25th November, and initially the BLF said the official announcement would be on the 12th December, however a day or so later they contacted us to say it was delayed to Wednesday 17th (i.e. next Wednesday).
Plans for how we will respond to the announcement next week have been discussed at the Memorial Hall Management Committee meetings since then, but unfortunately we have to wait.
Thank you to Keith for contacting us about this (his email can be seen as a comment below). In 2004 the community vote gave a clear go ahead for re-building the Memorial Hall, and the Committee and supporting project teams have put considerable effort into realising our community’s aspirations. All stages of the process have been formally supported by the Parish Council and all the user group representatives on the Memorial Hall Management Committee.
From all of us here at PARWICH.ORG, a heart felt thanks for all the hard work that has got us this far, and our best wishes for the announcement next week.
PARWICH.ORG 
The following was emailed to parwich@hotmail.com by Keith Parsons with the request that it be posted on the Blog. Keith’s email is reproduced here in full, though it should be pointed out that PARWICH.ORG does not agree with the sentiments it expresses:
A Post regarding the Memorial Hall
Memorial Hall Latest?
The Parwich.Org web site announced on 17th October that the decision on Lottery funding for the replacement hall would be made on 25th November. I heard through the village gossip tree that any public announcement regarding the result would be made on 12th December. But here we are – 12th December, and still no news! There are a good many people in the village on tenterhooks about this decision, because they do not want a new, extravagantly expensive Village Hall.
The Women’s Institute think refurbishing preferable to replacement of the existing Hall. The Over 60s Club agrees. The Horticultural Society refused to help with fund raising; and the objectors to planning permission for this replacement Hall argue that the existing one simply needs updating. I went to a poorly attended Film Club in the Hall the other night (10 people), and was struck by how completely adequate the Memorial Hall still is for the needs of the village. It just needs a few quid spending on it. The Village Hall committee could have updated the toilet facilities and disabled access already, but have failed to do this. the Committee has (or should have) money saved and ring fenced for this purpose which it chose not to spend. This made their plea for a new hall look more justified.
The existing Hall should not be torn down. The trees on the site should not be destroyed. This is a Conservation Area. It is notable that since the proponents of this new scheme don’t live anywhere near it they won’t have to suffer the consequences of their decisions, like loss of trees, degraded views, or parking pushed onto the streets from all the extra activities they dream will take place.
Even the Peak Park planners described the design of this new hall as “a discordant and alien feature to the centre of the village” and they argued, “..the building remains disproportionate in size and scale in the context of the application site and its immediate setting.” The last minute amendments to the Hall plans did not satisfy these criticisms.
For some inexplicable reason the Planning Committee ignored the over 30 objections the planners originally gave for rejecting this project. Even the Head of Planning has since described the last minute amendments to the hall plans as ‘ relatively minor’, so they hardly justify the Planning Committee’s rejection of its professional advice, or the planners’ last-moment complete about face on their previous position. Mystifying!
During the so-called consultation period in the village, an inexpensive updating of the building was not offered as an option to vote on, only a extravagant plan involving cladding the entire building in stone! We were also assured in the run-up to the vote that money for refurbishment was not available, so a new hall would be better. This turns out to be untrue.
Quite a few Parwich residents feel the village hall issue has been so divisive that the community is split as never before. In my opinion, the jolly bonhomie of Parwich.Org represents a small group of hall campaigners and not the village as a whole, as indicated by the same small group of regular contributors who keep it going. The folk who don’t want the Memorial Hall destroyed feel they are being pushed into a scheme that could well turn out, as one critic recently put it, to be Parwich’s ‘Millennium Dome’ – an overly expensive and unjustifiable white elephant.
If this project goes ahead the normal village hall activities will have to stop for a year or will have to relocate while the rebuilding takes place. It is open to question whether some groups and their activities will even exist after any new hall is completed. Many village societies are not in good shape, with poor and declining attendance. I refer to the Local History group, first responders, the W.I.. Will the organisers of the play group want to pick up the pieces after a year’s lapse? If not, the hall usage will plummet even further.
We can only hope that owing to the Recession the failure to raise a further £350,000 will save us from this £850,000 extravaganza – or will it cost even more? !! I would not encourage anybody to dig deep into their pockets for this scheme. The existing hall could have been refurbished brilliantly with only a quarter of this Lottery grant, giving it decades more life without interrupting present activities. With so much money needed for this one project, can local funds also be raised for Church repairs? I doubt it. This is the wrong hall, in the wrong place, at the wrong time!
As out going chair of the Parwich & District Horticultural Society I wish to point out that our representative on the Management Committee has, along with the other user group representatives, consistently voted in favour implementing the community mandate to rebuild the Hall. Neither our Committee nor our AGM have yet discussed the issue of fund raising in support of the project.
Also as an interested party, I read the WI’s letter to the Planners in which they affirmed their support for a rebuild, but expressed reservations about the present design.
Further the Over 60s are represented on the Memorial Hall Management Committee that is leading this project, but they are not minuted as having made any objections to the principle of a rebuild, nor did they as a group express any objections to the Planners.
Surely the time for objecting to the idea of a rebuild was in 2004.
Gosh,it must be cold out there for some people!
if the new hall was to be built on the football field would you be so behind it ?
Correction. I would be apologising to Peter T for my mistakes if I thought I had made any. But it isn’t like that, so I’m double checking my facts. So far I have only spoken to the Secretary of the W.I. who reaffirmed that she was incandescant when she discovered the W.I. letter to the planners had been misinterpreted and put in the ‘pro’ section of the letters file. I read the letter myself, too, Peter. To quote her as of today, “All we wanted was a new kitchen and new loos, we did not want the building replaced. This was the view of the W.I. with only two exceptions”. I will check my other facts and apologise if necessary.
Following the above letter you published from Keith Parsons with his view of the rebuilding of the Memorial Hall, I felt it was only fair to offer a view of one of the democratic majority who voted for the present project, and continue to support it.
Whilst Keith’s letter is a personal view, and he has every right to express it, in reading it I feel an increasing and overwhelming sense of injustice and indignancy, when the majority is engaged in the process for the ultimate benefit generations to come.
The Memorial Hall Committee is charged by the democratic process to rebuild The Hall for the benefit of all users, the Community and also, I believe, with a special regard for future generations. Many of the key users of the Hall presently, our youngest children, did not get a vote in the 2004 poll, but actually they are the most regular users and happen to be financially the largest contributor to the Hall’s revenue. As we all do, they have to put up with the shortcomings of an outdated building, with inadequate modern insulation, heating, toilets and kitchens on a daily basis.
Keith uses very, very emotive language in his missive, and whilst we may see that for what it is, that is his right within the bounds of truthful representation.
But perhaps therein lies a clue to motivation.
What really does motivate each view here?
From my perspective, I see a group of incredibly dedicated busy people, most of whom have demanding full time jobs, working their backsides off, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of our Community, and the benefit of generations of Parwichian’s to come. I have no doubt that their motivation is the common good, and to try to do something positive for our Community.
People have a right to oppose this, and they have channels through which to legitimately do it. If there are enough of them, and they are representative of the Community, they will have their way. For that is democracy, fairness and justice. It is ironic, that the team who are trying to achieve the Hall rebuild for the majority who want it are actually giving Keith the forum to voice his opinions. The “Jolly bonhomie” that Keith describes spend enormous amounts of their time keeping parwich.org running for the benefit of the Community. 113,584 page views, and Keith’s keen desire to publish his views here, prove that this is a popular and powerful medium.
If you are smart, eloquent, and have plenty of time at your disposal, it may be possible to write a persuasive essay arguing the world was actually still flat. However, most of us live in the real world where we know that positive progress is important; facilities for our young people are vital for community cohesion and wellbeing, and to ensure the Community Groups which Keith feels are in such decline have the facilities to allow them to flourish. (Incidentally, I understand that “Mama Mia” was a sell out last night, so maybe Keith just chose a bad night?)
Keith talks about the consultation process, the options presented in 2004, and the current process, as though they are foisted upon him by some faceless unelected dictator. If this is so, who is doing the foisting and how?
Keith, if you are so sure that you are right, your motives are good for the Community, and they will agree, why not give up your days, evenings and weekends, and gain majority approval for your views? Canvass. Get elected. Go through the discipline and challenge of presenting a coherent and considered case to the village. Gain their approval. Develop your thoughts and ideas. Poll all parts of the community to get a balanced view. Put together a team of volunteers to undertake the task. Hold endless meetings and keep detailed minutes for public scrutiny. Generate and develop plans, gain planning approval through the prescribed statutory procedures. Submit your considered bids for funding (and make no mistake, even a refurbishment to comply with the minimum statutory requirements would take considerable funding).
Alternatively, you could try to subvert this process by misrepresentation, thus publicly undermining those we elect and have gone through this painstaking process; who give of their time to “do it properly”, – that is your right, and because the good people of Parwich.org provide you with this forum, you could do it efficiently and with widespread immediate coverage. You could organise a whispering campaign implying large numbers of dissenting voices, continually quoting shadowy “sources” who remain nameless. If you were really underhand, you might try to whip up discord in the village for your own aims if you cannot achieve them democratically.
As an alternative to the Parsons view, I would encourage the people of Parwich to continue to back the democratically elected volunteers who are so selflessly giving of their time in order to make the future better for our Community.
Help out where you can, and give as much as you are able. This is an exciting, ambitious and worthy project which will succeed because most of the Community wants it to. It provides for a better future for us and for our children.
I can thoroughly understand and appreciate the views of people, many who have generations of history in Parwich, that change for change’s sake is not necessarily a good thing. What is happening with the Hall does not challenge or negate the achievements of the generations in the past who went through exactly the same process in building the previous two incarnations of this focal point of our community. It is a continuation of their spirit and values; – to give of your own time to provide for the benefit of all. It is the RIGHT thing to do, at the RIGHT time, and in the RIGHT place.
Oh, and one more thing – Keith of all people should understand press embargoes, so to imply that the postponement of the BLF announcement at their request may somehow be a part of a conspiracy on the part of the MHC to pull the wool over people’s eyes, is truly farcical. I for one, sincerely hope the BLF demonstrate their belief in the project by granting us the wherewithal to achieve it. One thing’s for sure……….we will find out soon…….…….
In the light of Keith’s comments I have re-read the WI letter referred to. It was dated 29th July 2008 and signed by their local President.
The letter starts “Parwich WI agree that the Hall needs updating but have a number of concerns about the proposed new building“; it then raises three concerns relating to “noise and traffic“, “parking spaces” and a “bland face to the main village road“; and concludes “We would like to acknowledge all the time and effort that the Hall committee has put into the plans, but feel our concerns should be expressed“.
Through relying on memory I may have overstated the position, but no where in the letter is an objection to the principal of a rebuild stated, rather concerns about the proposed design.
There does not appear in the Memorial Hall Management Committee minutes to be any statement from the WI objecting to the principle of redevelopment, though they have had a user representative on the Management Committee through out the process.
If the WI feels misrepresented I can only say that my comments were based on what is in the public domain, i.e. their letter and the Memorial Hall minutes. If the Parwich WI, as Keith’s quote from their Secretary seems to imply, has formally voted their opposition to the redevelopment of the Memorial Hall, this puts their Memorial Hall Representative as a Trustee of the Charity in a constitutionally untenable position.
Peter T says the Hall Committee had a clear mandate to pursue a replacement village hall, and that the time to object to the proposal was in 2004. Let me offer a bit of history on this.
As Keith pointed out above, the village was not given the option of an economical updating of the existing building, only one involving adding stone cladding to the entire building at great expense. More modest refurbishment plans had already been professionally drawn up under the Hall chairmanship of Dennis Laycock. Also, building on the Football field was not given as an option, despite its ideal location for a new hall, and this would have given an opportunity to sell the existing hall site to help towards the cost of the new building.
So we, Keith and I, put out a flyer around the village saying “Vote for option one – refurbishment – but the cheap version”. When the vote took place on the limited options available, ‘replacement on the same site’ was chosen by a majority of only ten votes. However, it follows from this vote that our little campaign had needed to turn only 6 voters in our direction for the existing policy not to have been adopted. Now here comes the Machiavellian bit. ….
While several people approached us to congratulate Keith on an excellent and realistic flyer, we also received an anonymous and vitriolic poison pen letter from a cowardly individual, offering personal insults and telling us to keep our views to ourselves and stop campaigning for refurbishment only. We were taken aback by this and, and not wanting conflict, in response we ditched Keith’s plan to leaflet the village a second time before the vote took place. How we regret this! What we had been doing was simply an example of participating in the democratic process. If we had continued as planned, the outcome might have been different from the result we ended up with. So Democracy won the day, but by the same token it illustrated the marginal nature of the support. As you can see, we were actively involved at this time – the only people campaigning for anything specific, even though what we wanted was not an available option. We have never been against an improved village hall facility.
It is true, some people have accused us of ‘not being involved’ in helping with this proposed development, but since we oppose it in principle there has been nothing we could contribute. By the way, we have not criticised the hall committee for all its hard work, we have simply questioned the process by which we have arrived at a likely BLF grant, and the wisdom of the hall replacement policy. Also we are completely appalled at what we see as the National Park Authority’s grant of planning permission when the plans were so overwhelmingly criticised on planning grounds by the planners themselves, until the very last minute.
So Peter argues that the time to object was 2004. Well we did, Peter, but we underestimated the determination of others to win and we ran an incompetent campaign. So are we headed for an extortionately expensive hall for 500 people?
By the way, we are sincerely most grateful that the Village Hall Committee web site has not censored us for having views with which they disagree. We feel our arguments have been about the issue and not merely emotive, as Graham claims. Who knows? Keith’s next contribution may argue in favour of a flat Earth!
Wow… that’s amazing. An opinion has been posted which goes against the grain of some of our village occupants and as of yet has not been removed. Must be christmas.
For the record, and aside from the occasional piece of spam which slips through our spam filter, we have only deleted two or maybe three comments in the entire lifespan of PARWICH.ORG. In each case, the blog team have discussed the issue before reaching a decision, and in each case the commenter has been personally e-mailed with the reason for that decision. We also remove comments if the commenter themselves has had second thoughts; this has also happened from time to time.
(Ironically enough, we actually have been criticised in the past for not taking a firmer stand on controversial comments – so maybe it’s a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t?)
One thing that I also want to make absolutely clear is that PARWICH.ORG has full editorial independence from the Memorial Hall committee. (Of the six blog team members, only one is a member of the Memorial Hall team.) Although we support their objectives with regard to the proposed rebuild, we welcome debate on all the issues, and we have no wish to silence dissenting voices.
Any debate – if conducted in a reasoned and respectful manner, without descending into unsubstantiated insinuations or vulgar name-calling – can only help to illuminate the issues involved, and I think it’s only right and proper that those on differing sides of an important issue should have the chance to appreciate each other’s positions more fully.
If I thought that PARWICH.ORG was little more than a pet-project playground for a small and unrepresentative clique of villagers, or a “Pravda”-style propaganda sheet for a shadowy and unaccountable “Politburo”, I’d give the site up tomorrow! However, our readership stats (up to 700 page views on a busy day, and never less than 200 on a quiet day), the number and variety of comments that we receive, and the number of e-mailed submissions from outside the blog team that we receive – week in, week out – all serve to reassure me that this is not the case.
Sure, you’ll always get a number of people who feel inclined to comment more frequently than others – jokey banter in particular can be one of the more enjoyable aspects of the site – but equally there are a much larger group of regular readers who comment less often, if indeed at all. We know this from conversations we have had around the village over the months, and from the e-mails that we have received.
Avril, I’m very sorry to learn about the anonymous and abusive “poison pen” letter which you received. Please be assured that we would never permit an attack of that nature to appear on PARWICH.ORG.
Thanks for the background info. Mike. I concurr that I too am very sorry to learn of the “poison pen” letter, and would never condone such behaviour. Shame on those who resort to such tactics.
As for flat earth – I have always been very suspicious of radical theories, and would welcome the opportunity to host the first “flat earth revivalist” meeting at Church View – so Keith, consider that an invitation :o).
When I wrote my comment which upset Graham so much, I thought I was arguing about policies, not people. So I value Mike A’s comments, above. Let’s stick to the issues and not impugn the integrity of individuals.
If I don’t sit on a committee – as most of the people in this village do not – that does not mean that I, or others, are not interested in good community outcomes. Some folk are ‘born’ committee members, others are not, and the people on committees are there because they want to be. Debating issues is important and as the estimated cost of the replacement Hall spirals – up by around 70 per cent since this issue began, and possibly still rising – it is not surprising that residents might want to question the wisdom of what is being done in their name. Do public projects get completed on time and within budget? Often they do not. Think Wembley Stadium, Scottish Parliament … even Parwich Hall..? It does not follow that because committee members are hardworking and self-sacrificing that they are necessarily pursuing the right course. We have a right to our doubts.
I am a resident whose personal amenity and home will be sorely affected if this replacement hall goes ahead and, living a relatively quiet life, have little opportunity (or desire) to sow discord. If there is discord in the village it is not unrelated to the village hall issue.
All my contributions to this web site (very few) have carried my name in full and I have not hidden behind any label. Nor have I been involved in a whispering campaign or intentional misrepresentation, as has been insinuated. Policy disagreements occur at every level in communities across the nation and this discussion should be seen in that context. I am glad our ‘minority’ views have not been suppressed and take my hat off to Mike A and his team for this.
In closing, I’d just like to mention the village hall car park usage this weekend (about which I am not complaining!). I live directly opposite. On Saturday night 8 cars were parked as visitors went to the Legion for drinks. On Sunday Santa came to the Hall and 11 cars used the car park. Under the ‘new’ hall plans – with spaces for only 5 cars (plus 2 for people with disabilities) there would not have been enough room to park on either occasion, pushing some vehicles onto the street. This is how it could be in future, and there will be busier events than these.
The Peak Park planners highlighted the anomaly of the proposed plans not matching Highway Agency guidelines for new village halls to have a minimum 15 parking spaces. The Planning Committee chose to ignore the problem. Accordingly, I feel aggrieved by the loss of amenity engendered in the new hall development, especially if extra Hall bookings exacerbate the problem. As things stand, the existing car park will be reduced by half to allow the floor area of the new building to be increased by 65 per cent. The trees that currently mask the car park will be destroyed to maximise the parking space. This will be an ugly outcome and Avril and I are opposed to it. Here endeth my contributions to the web site for some time.
Ok, I’ve had enough now. I write as some-one who completed most of the first successful application to the Big Lottery Fund and a significant chunk of the second one, not as a member of any committee.
Why did I do this? Why did I spend such a significant amount of time on the project?
Three reasons 1) I believe that we should not take the continued existence of our ‘community’ for granted but should all be responsible citizens and put something back into it 2) I knew that I had a particular skill set that I could offer and based on putting something into my community, I offered it (we all have one of these, some just choose not to offer) 3) I recognised the longevity of the collective desire within this community to have a new hall (which goes back before the 2004 vote) and the essentially democratic nature of the decision making process that had been utilised to identify and quantify just exactly what that collective desire was.
I fully recognise that this a personal philosophy and will not be shared by all.
To those who sit outside this (and any other) project and throw brickbats at it (which, of course you are perfectly entitled to do) I would however ask that you consider a number of things:
1) That you start by acknowledging that all individuals involved in the current process have a similar philosophy to the one identified above and are giving of their time and energy because of this ie they are fundamentally well motivated and do not undertake devious Machiavellian activities
2) That if any mistakes have been made, that they have been made in this context and that a more positive way forward would be to offer to help the process to improve rather than to lambast it (fundraise, car parking strategy, tree preservation plan, full landscaping plan – there are plenty more)
3) That one gets ones facts straight before one criticises – the hall is not for 500 people, there was a £41,000 basic refurbishment option in 2004 (which did not include stone-cladding), in the 2004 vote there was a significant majority in favour of new build as opposed to refurbishment (the smaller majority related to location), it is not planned to stop normal activities while building takes place etc etc These inaccuracies simply serve to fuel anxiety within the community. If any individual has concerns about any issue related to the project then there is a well-established democratic process in the form of the Memorial Hall Committee and the Parish Council through which one can simply ask for clarification.
4) That one maintains perspective. This project is a small village hall in a small village, comparisons with larger projects such as the Dome, Wembley and the Scottish Parliament are misleading and also fuel anxiety
5) That one takes time to understand the lottery process itself. A significant amount of public money will not be awarded to any community of this size if that community cannot convince the lottery of its collective ability to manage such a large amount of lottery money efficiently and effectively. If we fail on Wednesday it may be for this reason (it could be for others) but if we succeed then one implication is that we have successfully convinced the lottery that we can indeed effectively and efficiently manage their money and achieve a successful outcome
6) That an award of £500,000 of public money to a community of this size (should we be successful) is a significant achievement
7) That the project people are working towards is one they genuinely believe that the village wants and that the village has voted for – in short individuals are working to deliver the village’s project.
We are now at a crucial point in this project. There is MUCH more work to be done and more help and support will be needed.
IF the fundamental premise of all of the above is flawed and there really are ‘a good many people’ out there who do not want this project then would you please tell us now? Before we do the work.
The Memorial Hall Committee, as the potential recipient of the grant ,will need to formally accept it at some point. An alternative would simply be to reject it.
The next year or so will be difficult if we are to see this project through to a successful conclusion. Maybe now is the time for ‘a good number of people’ to stand up and be counted.
I for one will not now lift a pen, attend a meeting, raise a penny or look at the huge pile of lottery related stuff that occupies space in my house until ‘a good many people’ have expressed a view, offered to help etc
If I have been genuinely mistaken in my good intentions and have helped secure a ptential £500,000 for a project that this community does not want, I apologise.
Alternatively, I hope to be reassured that my perceptions were correct all along. Over to you…
It upsets me greatly to see such dissent amongst fellow villagers about a project that should benefit everybody. I am one of the people who was born not to sit on committees but that does not mean I don’t care and have followed the progress of various village hall improvements schemes over the years. Most of these have unfortunately failed through one reason or another but finally, we seem to have a group of people with the relevant know how and drive to be able to push a scheme forward. As with anything in life, you will never get total agreement where more than one person is involved but to have got so far down this particular route means that surely there must have been more people for than against.
As I see it, you only have to look at the excellent village hall in Hulland Ward to see what can be achieved with hard work and foresight and I don’t see why our little village doesn’t deserve such a facility.
Well said, Cheryl, and I agree totally!
We have got so far and it seems tragic to have one or two people who – for whatever reason – seem to want to sabotage the whole project. Why do they?
As you say, there will always be differences of opinion. To disagree constructively is fine, and helpful; to attack destructively is not.
The committee and Val and all who are helping this village project so unselfishly deserve our support. They certainly have John’s and mine.
I would like to register my support for the Memorial Hall Management Comittee and commend not only the hours of work that they and Val have put in, but also the manner in which they have undertaken this controversial project. After extensive consultation, they have followed a clear democratic process, keeping the village informed at each step of the proceedings. They have done a fantastic job!
A majority of one works at Westminster I believe. I can recall no votes against except the location issue. The Memorial Hall has been an issue for most of the time I have lived in Parwich, the opportunity to form an opinion and state a case for or against has been very long. It seems to me that the village has decided very democratically in favour, surely it is time to get behind the project as a community and the knockers to get into line.
My personal wish and vote was for the alternative site, but I did not find it necessary to take my ball home.
Why not use £500,000 for the benefit of Parwich area. – Somewhere else will for certain if not here. These monies are made available for just this sort of project.
Why? Why? Why? let it go? The opportunity may never come again, but the hall will need big money some day.
Val, Forget the knockers that have just crawled out of the woodwork. Where were they when votes were being cast? Pick up your pen
before it cools down, and keep up the good work
on or off any committee. Criticism always hurts when you are giving of your best and the critics do nothing. I know from personal experience.
We too have been hugely impressed by the work of the Memorial Hall Management Committee and give our wholehearted support to the Memorial Hall proposal.
Members of the Committee have selflessly given their time and have worked so very hard to do something positive for the village. They stuck their necks out on our behalf and should not have had to suffer as much grief as they have done.
We are very grateful for the work of the Committee and hope you receive the recognition you deserve.